Senate Bill 912, An Act
Concerning the Definition of Administrative Functions under the Freedom of
Information Act

Good morning, Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone, Senator
McLachlan Representative Hetherington, and members of the General
Administration and Elections Committee. I am Barbara Quinn, and I am the
Chief Court Administrator of the Judicial Branch. I appear before you today
to explain our opposition to Raised Bill No. 912, An Act Concerning the
Definition of Administrative Functions under the Freedom of Information Act.

This bill defines the term “administrative functions” for purposes of the
Freedom of Information Act as “all matters not directly related to judicial
decision-making in individual court cases, and (B) those matters that relate
to the management of the internal institutional machinery of the judicial
branch, including, but not limited to, budgeting, accounting, rulemaking,
personnel, facilities, physical operations, docketing, recordkeeping and
scheduling.”

The Judicial Branch is opposed to the inclusion of “rulemaking” in this
definition as it violates the separation of powers by making an inherent
Judicial function, namely, the adoption of procedural rules for the courts,
subject to the oversight of an Executive Branch agency, namely, the Freedom
of Information Commission. This is not to say that the rulemaking process is
not open. Quite the contrary, the rulemaking process is open pursuant to the
First Amendments of the state and federal constitutions.

Notices of the meetings, agendas and minutes are available on the Judicial
Branch’s website and the meetings are open to all. I am not aware of any
complaints that documents about the rulemaking process were not made
available to any member of the public who requested it.

I should mention that the Judicial Branch has complied with the Freedom of
Information Act for documents involving any of its administrative functions,
including budgeting, accounting, personnel, facilities, and physical
operations. We are not opposed to including docketing, recordkeeping and
scheduling in the definition, as we do not believe that doing so would
implicate the separation of powers.

Let me assure you that Chief Justice Rogers and I both firmly believe that
the more transparency and openness with which we do our jobs, the greater
the degree of trust, confidence and respect the public will have in us. The
Judicial Branch is committed to doing our part to ensure the openness of all
aspects of Connecticut courts. In fact, the judges of the Superior Court
changed the practice book rules to allow the broadcast and televising of
arraignments. We have received hundreds of requests from media outlets to
cover these proceedings and the vast majority of these requests have been
granted.

We have made tremendous progress over the past two years, and we would hope
that the Legislature has confidence in our ability to continue that
progress. I urge the Committee not to include “rulemaking” in the definition
of “administrative functions.”